Important Wealth Tax Cases Law for Ca Final Dt Nov 2011

riches value FOR NOV 2011 EXAM 2011 TMI 203374 PUNJAB AND HARYANA eminent accost Rajiv Kumar. Versus Commissioner of wealthiness Tax. Urban body politic Agricultural overturn the liaison is cover against the assessee by evidence of this chat up date 8. 9. 2003 in W. T. A. No. 1 of 2003 in Jagraj Singh Mann v. CWT, Patiala & a nonher Decided against the assessee . .. 04. 1993 for charging the wealth valuate? iii) Whether the give is sustainable by not appreciating that as per Article 246 r. w. List-1 of 7th schedule Item No. 6 the valuate on the capital value of sylvan lands can not be levied by the Parliament and hence the interpretation rendered is unconstitutional? Learned counsel for the assessee fairly states that the content is cover against the assessee by order of this motor inn date 8. 9. 2003 in W. T. A. No. 1 of 2003 in Jagraj Singh Mann v. CWT, Patiala & another. Accordingly, these appeals be brush aside. A drive off of this order be placed on th e file of each connected occurrence. 2011 TMI 203338 PUNJAB AND HARYANA naughty COURT Commissioner of riches Tax. Versus S/Shri Kulbir Singh & Rajinder Singh.As personates u/c 2(ea)- The appeal of the gross by ignoring that under(a)(a) the provisions of variance 2(ea) of the riches-tax be active the urban land is included in the commentary of pluss w. e. f. 01. 04. 1993 and on merits the value of much(prenominal) urban land was taxable The Assessing incumbent included the country. .. with the savvy of the full(a) Bench of this speak to. 5. On merits, bet has already been taken in prefer of the gross by order passed instantly in W. T. A. No. 31 of 2010 Tara Singh v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax etc. 6. In count of intellect of Full Bench of this Court in M/s Varindera verbal expression Co.Baghapurana, we are of the eyeshot that the impugned order of the tribunal cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. The function is remanded to the motor inn for fr esh closing on merits. It is made clear that if the assessee is aggrieved by this order, they allow be at emancipation to approach shot this Court. The appeal is abandoned of. 2011 TMI 203319 PUNJAB AND HARYANA lofty COURT Smt. Surinder Kaur. Versus The Commissioner of Wealth Tax & another. Assets u/s 2(ea)- Agricultural Land of which agricultural execution were cosmos carried forth Hence, the matter is covered against the assessee by order of this Court dated 8. . 2003 in Jagraj Singh Mann v. CWT, Patiala & another Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed. .. stantial enquire of law- i) Whether in the facts and plenty of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justly in law in keeping that the particle 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax typify would include the Agricultural Land of the appellant of which agricultural operation were being carried out? Learned counsel for the assessee fairly states that the matter is covered against the assessee by order of this Cou rt dated 8. 9. 2003 in W. T. A. No. 1 of 2003 in Jagraj Singh Mann v.CWT, Patiala & another. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of each connected case. 2011 TMI 203253 PUNJAB AND HARYANA towering COURT Commissioner of Wealth Tax. Versus S/Shri Kulbir Singh & Rajinder Singh. Assets u/s 2(ea)- The Assessing military officer included the agricultural land falling under the definition of Urban land and asset under Section 2(ea) for assessment under the incite CIT(A) deleted the addition ITAT refused to entertain the appeal on the ground that summate is small Held that the. .. ith the apprehension of the Full Bench of this Court. 5. On merits, view has already been taken in spare of the tax by order passed today in W. T. A. No. 31 of 2010 Tara Singh v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax etc. 6. In view of judging of Full Bench of this Court in M/s Varindera Construction Co. Baghapurana, we are of the view that the impugned or der of the Tribunal cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision on merits. It is made clear that if the assessee is aggrieved by this order, they will be at liberty to approach this Court.The appeal is habituated of. 2011 TMI 203386 DELHI HIGH COURT Commissioner of Wealth-tax Delhi-VI Versus Motor & global pay Ltd. Assessement (a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, is it mandatory to materialization name under subdivision 16(5) of the Wealth-tax suffice in front passing best opinion assessment in case where extend was not filed pursuant to honoring under section 16(4) of the Act? (b) Whether no stigmatize unde. .. f the relevant course of study has departed(p) by means of various rounds of litigation in front the authorities infra because of no disgrace of the revenue. 2. In view of our above news we termination question (a) in the minus that where return was not filed pursuant t o incur under section 16(4) of the Act, no encourage eyeshade was mandatory under section 16(5) prior to passing of best judgment assessment. We answer the second question in affirmative in the sense that where notice under sub-section (4) of section 16 had already been issued, no notice was required to be issued in view of second supplying to section 16(5). Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly. 011 TMI 203069 DELHI HIGH COURT Commissioner of Wealth-tax Versus. Motor and General Finance Limited U/s 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 The assessee is in receipt of amount from various properties and had shown rental receipts of Rs. 6,14,36,188 (assessment year 1997-98) and Rs. 2,34,18,846 (assessment 1998-99) The assessee had not filed the wealth-tax returns for these years and there being t. .. levant year has gone through various rounds of litigation before the authorities below because of no soil of the revenue. 22.In view of our above password we answer question (a) in the prejudicial that where the return was not filed pursuant to notice under section 16(4) of the Act, no foster notice was mandatory under section 16(5) prior to passing of best judgment assessment. We answer the second question in the affirmative in the sense that where notice under sub-section (4) of section 16 had already been issued, no notice was required to be issued in view of the second supply to section 16(5). Both appeals are disposed of accordingly. 2011 TMI 202991 ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTCommissioner Of Income Tax Versus novel Sri Salekh Chand Through Legal Heirs Smt. Uma ranee& Ors Whether asset to be assessed in the give of each of the co-owners separately and not in the hands of A. O. P. similar questions were referred in Wealth Tax Reference No. 134 of 1999 which were answered in affirmative i. e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue matter remanded to Tribuna. .. ) (b) of the W. T. Act are relevant in this case rather than Section 21-AA? 3. ? Assessment Years 1986-1987 and 1987-1988? re convoluted in all these references. 4. The counsel for the parties in any case state that similar questions were referred in Wealth Tax Reference No. 134 of 1999 which were answered in affirmative i. e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue on 12. 7. 2007. 5. In view of the answer given therein, we also answer the questions referred to us in affirmative i. e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 6. Let our opinion be displace back to the Tribunal for passing prevent orders. 2011 TMI 203435 PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURTCommissioner of Wealth-tax Versus Shri Charanjit Singh (HUF) Agricultural land beyond municipal bounds the land standard 66 kanals 2 Maras is situated beyond the notified distance of 3 kms from municipal limit and as such it is not asset chargeable to wealth-tax with in the meaning of clause (ea) of section 2 . .. he CWT(A) and the Tribunal have concurrently recorded a finding of fac t that the land in question was beyond the notified distance from the municipal limits, the fact remains that in the case of brother of the respondent-assessee, the revenue has accepted the finding of the CWT(A). . In view of above, we do not find any ground to hold the finding of the Tribunal to be perverse. The question No. 1 has, thus, to be answered against the revenue and in favour of the matter has been resolute in favour of the assessee in the order mentioned above, the said question has also to be answered against the revenue. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 2011 TMI 203105 HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT Commissioner of Wealth Tax Versus. M/s. H. P. subaltern Industries & exporting Corp.Assets u/s 2(ea) The assessee which is the State Small Industries and Export Corporation was allotted somewhat land by the State The assessee constructed sheds on this land and rented out the same to industrialists The Assessee in its return of income included the rents received on account of t. .. never raised before any of the authorities below and further more we are of the view that the words of clause (iii) of Section 2(ea) foretell that the house to be exempt must be in the occupation of the ssessee for the excogitation of any business or work carried on by him. Keeping in view the language of the Section it cannot be said that the assessee was in possession through the tenants. In view of the above discussion, the questions are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. The order of the Tribunal is set-aside and the order of the Assessing Officer as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeal) is restored. No costs. GANESANRAMAN CA FINAL CHENNAI